 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF FLOYD3/18/1996
In this attorney discipline proceeding, respondent admitted misconduct regarding the matters described below. A hearing was conducted by a three-member panel solely on the issue of sanction. The panel recommended an indefinite suspension
The Morrell Matter
Respondent was closing attorney for the refinancing of two pieces of the Morrells' property. He failed to satisfy the original mortgages. When the Morrells began receiving late notices from the original lender, they notified respondent, who paid off the smaller of the two loans, amounting to $10,489.58. He did not pay the remaining loan of $31,472.90. Inquiries into respondent's trust account showed a negative balance of $200.26.
The Mark McNair Matter
Respondent represented McNair in a Worker 's Compensation case. He told McNair he could get between $13,000 and $14,000 on his claim by December 1993. In October 1994, respondent told McNair his secretary has run off with his money and asked McNair to go to the Fairfax Company to take out a loan which would be shared by McNair and respondent. McNair did this, borrowing $2,500 ($1,500 of which he then loaned to respondent) at an annual interest rate of 85%. McNair also executed an irrevocable assignment with Fairfax Company, assigning all of his interest in $3,793.81 (loan amount plus interest) from the benefits of his Worker 's Compensation claim. He authorized respondent to disburse that amount from the proceeds of the Worker's Compensation claim.
Respondent then told McNair he was able to get $4,000 on his claim. However, McNair actually received only $3,000. McNair then changed attorneys. Respondent wrote a letter to McNair's new attorney stating he would execute a consent order if his "lien," which was nonexistent, were satisfied.
The Vasco Smith Matter
Respondent represented Smith in a suit against the South Carolina Department of Corrections in federal district court. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss due to insufficient service. Included in an order regarding this motion were the following facts: respondent did not respond to the defendant's motion to dismiss at all; he failed to show he had properly served both the defendant and the Attorney General as
The Yvonne Beck Matter
Beck hired respondent to procure a divorce. Over one year later, Beck attempted to locate respondent and received a recorded message at his office stating it was closed until further notice. Respondent had previously told Beck pleadings had already been filed on her behalf. However, when she contacted the clerk's office she was informed there were no pleadings filed. She had to hire another attorney to obtain her divorce.
The Danny and Daniel Faircloth Matter
The Faircloths (father and son) hired respondent concerning an insurance settlement. Respondent wrote letters to the insurance company and another party regarding the matter. The Faircloths attempted unsuccessfully to contact Respondent for four months regarding their case.
The Marrs Matter
Mr. and Mrs. Marrs hired Respondent to obtain a divorce on April 19, 1994. Respondent told them he could obtain the divorce by the end of June 1994. When Mrs. Marrs attempted to contact Respondent in late May 1994, she was informed by a recording in his office it was closed until further notice.
The King Matter
Respondent represented King in a lawsuit. When King's deposition was scheduled, he attempted unsuccessfully to locate respondent. In his complaint letter to the Board he stated respondent had "disappeared with no trace, along with my file."
The Waters/Scarboro Matter
<
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|